Jump to content

User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2011/03

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

No consensus?

[edit]

Hi! I was just wondering what the reason behind a no consensus closure here was. Of the two keep votes, one was an editor saying that it should be speedy closed, since it was recently nominated, but the closing admin explained the reasoning and why this afd was acceptable. The other just listed a bunch of sources listed by the languages developers, and when told these weren't acceptable as the main sources to establish notability simply said that was too restrictive. I'm not challenging your decision yet or anything, I'm just curious. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of what my decisions mean: "Keep" without comment means keep, obvious from the !votecount. "Delete" without comment means delete, obvious from the !votecount. When a decision is close, I tend to give a comment. But when the result is "no consensus" and the reason is some variant of "sources have been provided, not sure whether they satisfy notability guidelines," I sometimes don't leave a comment because I prefer not to repeat myself without saying anything substantial. In this case, the discussion was leaning "delete," but I felt the argument against the sources was not conclusive enough; there was some room for doubt. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

[edit]

requesting history restore on redirect

[edit]

You deleted the article Guild of Calamitous Intent. Its now a redirect. Can you restore the article history to where the redirect is at? That way I can do a full history export of the article, to upload it to the Venture Bros Wiki as I have been doing with other articles from the show which were deleted/redirected/merged. Dream Focus 00:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why you delete page of Veena pande y

[edit]

why you delete the page of Veena Pandey who are you to delete the page you are nots uppoed to delete thi ss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.64.171 (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page?

[edit]

Are you going to restore the talk page of François Asselineau as well? SilverserenC 07:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch.  Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)

[edit]
Hello, King of Hearts/Archive/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MacMedtalkstalk 01:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail....AGAIN! :D MacMedtalkstalk 19:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Service award level

[edit]

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

[edit]

On several AFDs you just relisted

[edit]

In all three, the AFD nominator, Highhousefarm1 (talk · contribs), and the one keep !voter who screams the same thing, Wilbysuffolk (talk · contribs) are both  Confirmed socks of Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs). Perhaps those relists should be reconsidered, and the AFDs closed, probably as speedy keeps? What do you think? –MuZemike 02:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simonds of Botesdale has already been closed as "keep" by Wizardman, appropriately. However, Far East Travel and Galloway European Coachlines have outstanding valid "delete" !votes, so they cannot be closed as "speedy keep." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Ciccone

[edit]

Keep? How? ttonyb (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, clicked the wrong button the first time. Fixed immediately. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see that. You had me wondering if I had missed something. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Black

[edit]

In regards to your closure of the DRV, I don't read terribly much consensus there that the previous content is worth keeping around. Reviewing the old revisions, they're full of BLP violations (some of them rather egregious) and rumors, so I don't believe they would be terribly useful to writing a proper article. Would you object to re-deleting the old revisions? Cheers. lifebaka++ 10:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the problem; clearly the interests of BLP conflict with the interests of GFDL. I'll redelete it but keep an eye on it to make sure that no revisions are substantially similar to old revisions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrianov2.jpg

[edit]

Where is the evidence for this? I certainly don't see it at User:Cmapm/gymnast. That says nothing about the GFDL, derivative works, or commercial re-use.--Chaser (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I received a reply from his granddaughter today, where she writes, that she didn't understand the essence of the problem and gives me a right to decide, believing in my honesty." She has granted the uploader the right to release it under the GFDL. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deserves wider discussion. I've opened a thread at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files#File:Andrianov2.jpg.--Chaser (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam whitelist

[edit]

Hello... saw your changes to the whitelist and was a bit confused, but it appears you're just temporarily whitelisting those links so that you can file some pages. Is that correct? (Sorry for the interruption, by the way.) --Ckatzchatspy 06:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. It is the best I can do, because I don't think there's an option to exempt admins from the blacklist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athoc

[edit]

Can please provide your rationale for the relist of the AfD? It appears to currently be at 3 policy-based delete !votes including the nomination, with no keep !votes (including the article creator, who commented but did not vote, to his credit per the COI policy). Many thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the common scenario where a nominator provides a valid rationale and then two "delete" !voters pile on, it's always a marginal case between a straight "delete" close and a relist. Existence of opposition takes it even farther from a "delete" close. When in doubt, as long as there is no risk of generating excessive WP:BURO, I tend to side with relist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks for taking the time to explain. Thanks again! VQuakr (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter question

[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Kingpin13#Filter_number_9's talk page. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPASR

[edit]

I noticed your edit to Wikipedia:Deletion process, and I was curious: What does the abbreviation "NPASR" represent? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No prejudice against speedy renomination." When closing certain debates, especially AfDs which have received little or no participation but are unsuitable for a "soft delete" close, the closing admin might choose to close as "no consensus NPASR," meaning that a immediate renomination is not frowned upon. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, many thanks. I tend to write "without" and "immediate" instead of "no" and "speedy" (same meaning, ultimately), so I failed to make the connection. :) Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, March 24, 2011.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ripley

[edit]

I am quite confused by your closure of this as "redirect to Dreamcatcher (novel)". After over 3 weeks of discussion there was not a single !vote or opinion given that indicated a desire to redirect. Including my nomination, there were 3 !votes to delete and a comment by the creator that did not indicate a strong opinion in any direction. How you can read that as a result to redirect is beyond me. I believe the only logical outcome from the discussion and !votes present would have been to delete. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the years, the "redirect" option has evolved from a synonym of "merge" to having the same meaning as "delete" except that an appropriate redirect target exists. Since such a target existed, I used my discretion to redirect it to the book. Think about it this way: I could just close it as "delete," and then recreate the redirect as a neutral editor. But since there is nothing harmful with the history, it can be restored. (In general, the main reason for deleting any non-harmful, non-redirectible content is just to show readers that nothing exists at that title.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the debate was that the 3 editors who !voted (including myself) all agreed that the content was not appropriate for Wikipedia. If a possible redirect target exists, then it seems to me the thing to do is to delete the content and then recreate the title as simply a redirect. When the article is redirected without the content being deleted (and all involved agreed that the content in this case was 100% plot summary, so there's really nothing useful to keep in the history), then the door is left open for anyone who disagrees with the AfD outcome (or simply doesn't care) to simply revert it at any time. This means that I now have to keep the thing on my watchlist to make sure that this doesn't happen. Every single AfD'd article that I've ever watched that's been closed as redirect (without the content being deleted) has inevitably been reverted by some anon or edit-warrer, typically multiple times. I don't particularly care if a redirect exists at the title; in fact I agree that may be a good service to readers. But when the consensus is to delete content, the closing admin's job is generally to delete said content. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the redirect is protected, either when somebody requests it or an IP tries to revert it back. I have done so just now. However, the content is acceptable; while primary sources are insufficient for notability purposes, they are good for citing facts in a notable article such as Dreamcatcher (novel) into which portions might be merged. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi about the Falling in reverse band page

[edit]

im wondering why this page keeps getting deleted, can you please explain why this is?. thank you. The page contains real information about this band, its not fake.. i have the bands myspace page url www.myspace.com/fallinginreversemusic and their twitter www.twitter.com/firofficial and also their facebook www.facebook.com/fallinginreverseofficial. they also have an article about this band and their lead singer. the lead singer was previously in a famous band called escape the fate after he had to leave he join falling in reverse. here's the lead singer in the previous band called escape the fate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USriZAMR2nA. Please im a big fan of him and this is all true information their big releasing their album very soon and their album is getting produced by escape the fates former producer and world famous rock producer micheal elvis baskette. thanks kyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle2641 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, by our notability guideline for bands, the band needs to either meet the criteria or have significant coverage in reliable sources. Myspace, Twitter, Facebook, and the band's official website are all unacceptable for the purposes of proving notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salt

[edit]

I thought only high profile or constantly recreated pages were supposed to be salted? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 10:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is only semi-salted. This is, again, almost equivalent to deleting the article, as IPs can't create new articles and likewise can't edit semi-protected pages. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean. I accidentally selected the wrong protection option. Fixed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi again

[edit]

there should be more information out there im having trouble figuring out what else i need to put on their to make it ok. there is an article about the lead singer and his new band on alt press a leading rock magazine. http://www.altpress.com/features/entry/exclusive_ex-escape_the_fate_vocalist_ronnie_radke_breaks_his_silence_after/. If its still not suitable can you please save this article and once this band has released the album and tours then could you please put it back up. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle2641 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it is an interview which makes it a primary source. Per your request, the article is saved at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Falling In Reverse (band). It is currently in "incubation" mode, meaning that it is not ready to appear yet but may have the potential in the future. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

error creating AFD

[edit]

Hi, i attempted to create my first AFD for the page Union violence. I didn't find the step by step instructions until i had already started the process. The AFD didn't work properly. Are you able to assist?

Thanks sincerely, Richard Myers (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any error with the AfD. You should be fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you, good to hear. Someone did assist by adding a missing header. Guess perhaps that's all that was wrong. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supervote at Paul Robeson House (London)

[edit]

It appears you used a !supervote against consensus at Paul Robeson House (London). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really wanted to close as "no consensus," but the sources were simply not adequate. For the book, we cannot assume that it contains information we want it to contain. Yaksar did a good job at explaining why the other sources did not qualify. Since it's just a merge, if you can bring up more sources, you can contest the merger on the talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geoffrey_C._Grabowski

[edit]

No horse in the race, but I did notice you closed the AFD with notes that don't seem to match the relisting results. None of the relisted results were "weak" and many AFD "keep" votes are dependent upon article improvement. Your actions here seem arbitrary. Again, I have no horse in the race, else I'd simply re-create the article with solid references, as anyone who really wants to make the project better and stronger would. Deletion is easy, actually doing something constructive and creative isn't (as you well know). Thanks - - - -SPA name of 8times19 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction here: quality of the article is not to be confused with quality of the references. If sufficient references exist but simply are not present in the article, then the article is kept and recommended for cleanup. However, if sufficient references have not been shown to exist, then the article is deleted. Should those references materialize in the future, the article can be recreated. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to my article?

[edit]

I had an article 'Virginia_Good' and it seems to be deleted by you. I want to know why? I was not finished locating the photo that I mentioned, which should be proof enough as to her notability (as if a critically acclaimed book being written about the girl wasn't enough?) Gaggleoffools (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I based my decision on the discussion at the AfD. Basically, there was only source, the book, in support of her notability. If the book is so critically acclaimed, then perhaps there should be an article on the book. I'm sorry, it sounds strange, but that's just how our policies work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a shame. I can understand you guys have certain policies, but somewhere, something has fallen through the cracks with WikiPedia. For example, in this case, as I'm sure, as with many others, there is no way for first hand accounts to be considered as to an articles' worthiness to be included into the Wikipedia.

There is, I'm sure, a great number of important events or people that will never be included into the Wikipedia for this reason. Wikipedia will certainly be the looser for that reason. I realize that there are plenty of cases where just anyone can come along and say that so-and-so is famous and should be in Wikipedia, but when you have other famous people who obviously know them and can attest to their overall story...

Like I said, something is missing from Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe they should be reconsidered at some point.

As for me, this was my first, and probably last Wikipedia article. I felt strongly enough about this girl's story to write something up for her. She's dead so it won't matter to her either way, but I felt it was an important part of history. She obviously had a great deal to do with the Hippie Culture and some of the very top players at Haight/Ashbury back in the day.

The main reason I probably won't write another article for Wikipedia is because I found the whole process intimidating, and a little unnerving. From day one, I wrote up the article, thinking that I'd have users from the community participate to make it better with their own knowledge (hey we gotta keep each other honest right), and that I would have time to edit up the article when I had more time. But within a day, I had several people speaking jargon I had never heard write up an article for deletion with little explanation as to why or the process. How is one supposed to contest something they've never heard of? If you aren't some Wikipedia expert you are just SOL I guess. I did give it a shot though.

The shame of the whole thing is that I had talked to the curator of the news and microfilm archives at SFSU, and she told me that the article was there but I'd have to go to the school to get it and copy it via microfilm, since there were no web items from the time the school was called San Francisco State College. Since I'm living in Japan that's a bit difficult. I had a friend in SF who I'm trying to get to help. Sooner or later I will get it though. At least then I'll have proof to go have the Webster's dictionary definition of Hippie changed, literally. According to them the earliest use of the word Hippie was much later than what was documented for this girl.

Gaggleoffools (talk)

You actually presented a fairly good defense. The article might have been kept if there had been one or two more independent sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV comment

[edit]

Explain to me how removal of sourced content and making threats is "not vandalism". He doesn't have a recent warning because he leaves wikipedia for long periods in between. STATic message me! 05:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIV is optimized for obvious whack-a-mole-style vandalism blocks and efficiency, not complex cases requiring detailed review. I looked at his five most recent edits and did not find any threats or removal of sourced content. Preferably, such cases should be listed on WP:ANI. For any AIV report, you should provide diffs showing the vandalism, and even more so if the user has a relatively large edit history that is difficult to sort through. Now, which edits were you talking about? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced, unsourced, might as well been unsourced considering the unreliability of the source, removal of sourced content, making threats, more removal of sourced content, same removal of sourced content and those are just recent vandalistic edits. STATic message me! 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTVAND, accidental misinformation and threats are not vandalism, and therefore should not be reported to AIV. Out of those edits, the only one potentially worth blocking for is the threat. Report on ANI/ANEW if he continues his disruption. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I had no idea I could go to a page right now and remove reliably sourced content and get away with it? Makes sense. STATic message me! 00:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of content is only considered vandalism if it is done with a willful intent to harm the page. You have to assume good faith unless demonstrated otherwise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Revolution Flag

[edit]

Hi I thought that in terms of no consensus that wiki pages were to be kept not deleted? Can u tell me the policies concerning this issue. [1]--Duchamps_comb MFA 14:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it was renominated and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Revolution flag (2nd nomination). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerseyboy Hero Article Creation

[edit]

Need Help moving a previously deleted title from Special page to correct status. An Associate editor is working on it with me at this address:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Creditcamp/Jerseyboy_hero

Could you please help us, we are both new at this and would like it up as soon as possible.

Thanks, 

comment added by Writerbug (talk • contribs) 20:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Writerbug (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you need is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, in order to meet WP:NFILM. The 3 GMNews articles are all the same thing, and local newspapers are not viewed as favorably as large national newspapers in terms of meeting notability requirements. The Asbury Park Library and Red Bank Orbit are trivial coverage. The GSFF is not important enough of an award to confer automatic notability. The official website is not independent. IMDB is not a reliable source. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

454 Life Entertainment

[edit]

You deleted the article on 454 Life Entertainment that someone wrote. I would like to re-write a new article about the record label with sources from MTV such as:

The first source looks good, though I prefer it to be a bit more "meaty." As for the second source, I'm not sure how MTV's blogs work: can anyone create a blog, or do only MTV employees have blogs? If the second one is true, then it is acceptable as a source. Searching Google News, I found another one, which gives us enough coverage. I'll restore it, and you can incorporate those sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/* RouterTech */

[edit]

The RouterTech article was deleted without any prior notification to the author. At the very least, this is impolite. But I also submit that it is both inappropriate and unfair. I strongly dispute the basis upon which it seems to have been deleted, and would request that it be undeleted. If whoever originally nominated it for deletion wishes to do so again, then there can be a proper debate about it. Thanks. Chewbaca75 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've restored and relisted it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RouterTech (2nd nomination). Note that if more people had !voted for "delete," you would have had to present a strong argument backed by reliable sources to allow recreation of the article, even if you had not been notified (which I agree is the polite thing to do). But since the "delete" !votes were few and not particularly strong, this barely falls under WP:NOQUORUM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ParentInterview

[edit]

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ParentInterview as no consensus. Can you please explain how you came to that conclusion. The only person advocating keep thought it was a big deal at the time and provided no evidence in the form of reliable sources. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry if I'm intruding here, but I thought I could help out and speed this up. The AfD was closed as NPASR, or no prejudice against speedy renomination. Basically, it means not enough input was given to get a consensus, but you can go and renominate it right now if you want.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but there were 4 participants, even if one of them didn't exactly !vote. -- Whpq (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD with 0 or 1 person other than the nominator !voting "delete" is considered WP:NOQUORUM and therefore equivalent to WP:PROD. Opposition for any reason is sufficient to prevent the article from being soft deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will send it ot AFD again. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fistgate RFD

[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you closed the Fistgate RFD as a merge. By my count, there were 17 deletes, four keeps and five merges, and I feel that the 17 deletes made reasonable policy arguments. I simply don't think there was a consensus to delete. Would you mind taking a second look? Thanks, Kansan (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "I simply don't think there was a consensus to merge"? Anyways, a "redirect" result should not be thought of as synonymous with "merge." What "redirect" means is "delete, but there happens to be an appropriate target to redirect to." Note that I semi-protected the redirect to prevent recreation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation, and, yes, I did mean "merge". I shouldn't edit so late at night. Kansan (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar concern. No one was able to justify the article existing at all because a lack of any credible sources. By keeping a redirect, which no one seemed to adequately argue for, Wikipedia's article on Fistgate remains the top search choice thus legitimizing this smear campaign. My impression is that the "fistgate" section in the MassResistance article is just as flawed because only that group has tried to apply the name and the media have no fallen for it. Can we delete the redirect as well so it drops off the google searches as well?Haley 20:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added noindex to the redirect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. When will the changes be visible on search engines?Haley 23:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Fistgate still shows the original article (as opposed to the redirect), so Google will update it whenever its robot finds that page again. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brittani Kline

[edit]

This is just a small reminder to delete the related redirect following the AfD close. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request help with Church of God International (USA)

[edit]

Hi,

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Day Christians - Norway on 23 March 2011 which was an AfD started on 6 March 2011. About 10 March, the material from Seventh Day Christians - Norway was moved to Church of God International (USA) and you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Day Christians - Norway as "redirect to Church of God International (USA)".

Background:

An editor announced contentious intentions here then refused to work together constructively going forward here, and has since reverted me here and shown up on an obscure article mentioned on my home page for my having re-written it: here.  Editor has also appeared after me here with this. Also here with this.

On March 22, I participated in an AfD here, and on March 25 he/she removed material from the related article here. This was only two days after you closed the AfD that formally moved that same material to the article.  I thought the deletion looked a bit like one or more older AfDs may have been involved, but I didn't follow up until I found a reference while researching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of God, an International Community.  The reference shows the relationship between Intercontinental Church of God and Church of God International (USA), and I included the reference in my edit here.  I also noted in the edit comment, "restore AfD decision closed on 2011-03-23".  Within eight minutes my work was gone and the material you closed as a redirect was gone for the second time here.  I hope you understand why I believe that it is unwise for me to interact with this editor and that I need someone's help.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all the link you've cited are either AfDs or edits to Church of God International (USA). Since Seventh Day Christians - Norway is no longer a deletion issue, have you considered discussing it with Yaksar on the talk page? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilia Carr

[edit]

Hi. I think I understand why you closed the Emilia Carr AfD the way you did. However, the range and depth of coverage has not been significant enough to establish notability, and that includes the section on WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in Wikipedia:Notability (events). There has been no coverage beyond the local media. The incident (which is ongoing, so the coverage is ongoing) has attracted no in depth or case studies as mentioned in WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. My reading of the AfD is that there are 20 deletes to 13 keeps, and that the deletes are correctly citing guidelines while the keeps are using their own notions of notability or are incorrectly citing guidelines, as in the case of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I understand why you would think that mentioning coverage for a number of years would apply to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, but a careful reading of the guideline, in particular the final paragraph, will help to clarify that that is not what it is saying: "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." The initial coverage has not died down (the argument for her notability is that she is in prison, she is still in prison, it's ongoing). The incident has not been cited as a case study in any sources, let alone multiple. It remains a local story of no interest beyond the local community. Our guidelines advise us fairly clearly against covering local interest only media stories. If the case ever does get taken up by reliable sources beyond the local media, then the article can be revived, but for now it's one that we delete. Let me know what you think. SilkTork *YES! 23:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that the initial wave of coverage has not died down means that we cannot base our decision on whether sources have actually cited it as a case study, and therefore must speculate. If both sides are based on unsupported speculation, the article would get deleted since there is nothing to indicate that she will continue to be notable. But there are multiple sources emphasizing the fact that she is pregnant, so there is good reason to believe that it will be cited as a case study in multiple sources related to pregnancy and the death penalty. We don't know for sure, hence the "no consensus" close. Think about it this way: Even if comparisons to California did not surface until months later, if 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami were nominated for deletion now, would it be deleted? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Rosecrance entry

[edit]

Hi there,

I appreciate your decision in the deletion review for Rosecrance. Thank you very much.

After the first deletion, I updated the article's sources and removed the external Facebook/Twitter official links. Here is a copy of the cached final article: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosecrance

Should I simply remake the previously deleted article? Or should I wait for you to "undelete" the last deleted article? I'm just wondering about the process.

Billykulpa (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted it and placed it at User:Billykulpa/Rosecrance. After adding the appropriate sources, you can move it back to Rosecrance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2011/03&oldid=1091519029"